G20: Getting to the truth- the death of Ian Tomlinson RIP

[taffboy gwyrdd]

An issue for another thread I suspect. But I do think nonviolence = passivity is an idea that needs to be challenged. When coppers charge at you for no reason is it violent to stand your ground, or to protect those around you? If you run away or follow orders when threatened with violence are you perpetuating the use of violence?

Yes, these are things for another thread, but I wont start one just yet. We all need time to think and discuss the many ideas we will have for safeguarding our health and safety against the criminal elements of the state.

This must include methodology and equpiment for possible breakout from kettling which is a deliberate and highly dangerous tactic.

I'm fucked if Im going to stop being involved in street protest, but double fucked if Im going to end up in some Hillsborough situation because of those lying violent criminal filth.

 

[Kaka Tim]

For anyone who hasn't been invovled in protests or who wasn't there on the day and is shocked by this video - its how the police were behaving all day - and I saw several worse unprovoked attacks than whats on that video. Its pretty much how riot police behave all the time.

This is not a 'junior officer whose been poorly trained' or an individual bad apple - this is utterly normal cop behaviour. You see similar shit from the goon squad at football matches every week as well

And the cops ALWAYS lie about any incident where this behaviour leads to serious injury of death. From Harry stanley to de menzies - its the standard
operating procedure - and the media dutifully and consistantly repeat it as fact.

Agricola - whilst he is rightfully condemming the actions of the cop in question - must have spent his time in the force in the cadet band or in the traffic cone division if he really thinks that such behaviour is a shocking aberrration.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

He wasn't protesting or angry. He didn't do anything. Just crossing the street when he got taken out.

'he went over very easily' - what? He was attacked from behind by a lone police officer at sufficient force to throw him to the other side of street.

Bear in mind also that according to the witness statements quoted in the Guardian that was the second time he'd been knocked down, not the first. So it's not entirely surprising that he was looking a little bit wobbly ...

Also, if I'm correctly understanding what I'm seeing in the video he was whacked with a baton in one of the major nerves in his leg a split second before he was deliberately knocked to the ground.

 

[shaman75]

Apart from handing the government your name and address to put on their database of people who support violent extremism, signing that won't do any good at all.

Fair point.

I see them as fairly useless myself too, but just found the link on indymedia.

This was also there:

G20 Meltdown Saturday 11th April 2009

Assemble this Easter Saturday 11.30am
BETHNAL GREEN POLICE STATION

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/events/1079

 

[agricola]

(a) the point I was making was in reference to the fact that as far as I can tell, none of the coppers on the video had come forward voluntarily before the video was released, so any statement the IPCC has made after it's released is irrelevant to that point.

You dont know though - they may (indeed, one would hope that they would) have come forward at the same time the witnesses did - when pictures of Tomlinson being treated were released to the media. The IPCC would not necessarily release that info by itself, though perhaps they should confirm it one way or the other now.

(b)...
[bbc-sat5th]
I don't see how anyone would come to the conclusion that the death was in anyway connected to the actions of any police officers from this widely reported statement. Therefore it is misleading, and should have been corrected had any of those officers come forward to tell the police or IPCC the fuller version of the events that led to his death. Note that I didn't say it was deliberately misleading.

As I said earlier, while that statement may be in some ways misleading it may not be false - we dont know what the PM says beyond what has been released, and once again I point out that the IPCC and COLP may have had no idea that there was any involvement with police prior to his collapse in Cornhill. If they did and they put it out then obviously serious questions need to be asked, but it would be wrong to assume that at this stage.

to expand on what I said earlier, either none of those copper had come forward voluntarily prior to the video being released, or the police hierachy had decided to cover it up for as long as possible / at the very least do nothing to correct the false impression their original statements had given.

Again, we dont know what the progress of the IPCC investigation is.

 

[editor]

Apart from handing the government your name and address to put on their database of people who support violent extremism, signing that won't do any good at all.

How does being against kettling lead to supporting violent extremism?

I won't even ask you to back up the database claim because I know you haven't got a scrap of proof on that score and I don't want to disrupt the thread with endless paranoid-speak. Feel free to start a new thread on this topic, if you like.

 

[well red]

We saw the police live on the news being pelted with bottles as they tried to save him.

Now that actual footage of this has been released, showing what we knew to be the case all along (i.e. that the police were not pelted with bottles), and proving that this could not have been shown on live TV, I would like to take this opportunity to call PacificOcean a LIAR and suggest that THEIR PANTS are actually ON FIRE.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

For anyone who hasn't been invovled in protests or who wasn't there on the day and is shocked by this video - its how the police were behaving all day - and I saw several worse unprovoked attacks than whats on that video. Its pretty much how riot police behave all the time.

This is not a 'junior officer whose been poorly trained' or an individual bad apple - this is utterly normal cop behaviour. You see similar shit from the goon squad at football matches every week as well

And the cops ALWAYS lie about any incident where this behaviour leads to serious injury of death. From Harry stanley to de menzies - its the standard
operating procedure - and the media dutifully and consistantly repeat it as fact.

Agricola - whilst he is rightfully condemming the actions of the cop in question - must have spent his time in the force in the cadet band or in the traffic cone division if he really thinks that such behaviour is a shocking aberrration.

Agreed. This isnt a bad apple. This is systemic. That amount of wanton violence can only be sanctioned at a high level. The crime gos to the top. We nail them or they will continue to shit on us and kill us.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Be sure to complain to the BBC that they carry unchecked Met lies as truth despite their track record.

03700 100222

 

[treelover]

RE, bashing Agricola,

Surely the fact he posts on here and takes the time to explain his point of view(and often serious legal issues) is a good thing, though lets hope he doesn't go like another policeman who used to post on here who ended up in a Australian jungle in the ridiculous 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here!

 

[exleper]

I was there, and I'm taking great glee in seeing the truth about what happened that day come to light.

It wasn't just one cop acting out of character. It was a persistent and unified campaign of intimidation, disproportionate aggression and bullying against predominately peaceful protesters, all of whom were treated as criminals.

We were held against our will with no water or food and only got away by narrowly avoiding a baton smashed in the face, just for peacefully walking away.

They may have got away with justifying their tactics in the past by trying to pass off every protest as a carnival of violence, but they've become seriously unstuck here as the facts slowly trickle out. It's about time the Met faced the music for their tactics and this time they can't blame the protesters.

I couldn't make it these protests but I went to what was publicised as the 'peaceful protests' on the Saturday beforehand from Temple to Hyde Park and saw no police intimidation, no aggression, no violence. There were no arrests. The police behaved extremely well, I thought. Nobody got in anybody's way and I had a great day. This was the same police force as the one on Wednesday. What was the difference? Why was there a difference?

Perhaps part of the reason was the media. The press got wind that the protests on April 1 would be attended by the more fringe anti-capitalist groups and whipped up hysteria, which surely would have contributed to the choice of rather foolish 'kettle' tactics, etc. So is the behaviour of the police dictated by their expectations? If they expect trouble, they act looking for trouble? It seems to me to end up in this ugly 'violence begets violence' catch22 pattern of which there is no easy solution. I don't know, it's hard to make sense and it's getting late.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Which reminds me, we haven't heard from pdxm on this yet.

Perhaps he's helping the IPCC with their inquiries ...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I couldn't make it these protests but I went to what was publicised as the 'peaceful protests' on the Saturday beforehand from Temple to Hyde Park and saw no police intimidation, no aggression, no violence. There were no arrests. The police behaved extremely well, I thought. Nobody got in anybody's way and I had a great day. This was the same police force as the one on Wednesday. What was the difference? Why was there a difference?

Perhaps part of the reason was the media. The press got wind that the protests on April 1 would be attended by the more fringe anti-capitalist groups and whipped up hysteria, which surely would have contributed to the choice of rather foolish 'kettle' tactics, etc. So is the behaviour of the police dictated by their expectations? If they expect trouble, they act looking for trouble? It seems to me to end up in this ugly 'violence begets violence' catch22 pattern of which there is no easy solution. I don't know, it's hard to make sense and it's getting late.

There's also the question of numbers, far more people were present at the Saturday event, whereas on Wednesday, the police may well have outnumbered the protesters and hence felt more comfortable about getting nasty with them.

 

[free spirit]

Just to play devil's advocate here, and I'm not for one second in any way justifying the actions of the copper in the video, but there are a few things I did want to offer for the sake of balance in what seems a mostly one sided discussion...

1. This video, shocking though it is, is not necessarily indicative of a systemic problem of violence or brutality within the plod. Nor, I think, should all coppers be tarred with the same brush. A lot of them are decent people doing a tricky job.

yet none of them appear to have volunteered the information about this attack before video evidence appeared from the public side, and none of them intervened at the time either... says a lot IMO.

2. For all this talk of violence, we shouldn't forget the pointless aggression also seen on that day from the protesters(and I know it was a TINY, microscopic minority of an otherwise peaceful crowd, but still, smashing windows and burning car achieves absolutely fuck all.) With all the press hysteria leading up to it the atmosphere was pretty tense anyway, NOTHING justifies the coppers actions, but it can explain it.

violence against property should never justify police violence against people... particularly not people who several streets away from where that relatively minor bit of property damage took place, had nothing to do with it, and are presenting no immediate threat of doing anything more criminal than walking on a street trying to get home.

3. I do get that impression that many people on the internet, this forum especially, come to the table expecting a police fuck up and then take a particular amount of glee when they do. I can't see this as a healthy attitude. Like it or not we need the police and the only way we are going to improve things in this area is through mature and rational reconciliation and dialogue, rather than an immature 'us vs them' mentality which drives the coppers into these tragic fuck ups in the first place.

sorry, but you;re wrong. The only thing(s) that will ever change this situation are the public getting so wound up about it that the equivalent of the 90's 'institutional racism' enquiry takes place into it, and/or possibly the individual copper involved get's taken to court, found guilty and is sent down for it, which could well lead to a change in attitude, tactics and training as a result of coppers realising that they aren't actually above the law.

when you say we come to the table expecting a police fuck up, you should realise that this expectation is based in most cases on years if not decades of experience of the police's actions in these kind of situations, which leads us to being able to fairly accurately predict the most likely chain of events (see my posts from the night it happened).

The glee comes from the fact that there actually is now pretty much irrefutable video evidence of the police assault, which makes it significantly more likely that at least one copper will finally get his comeuppance, and potentially that the entire issue of police violence at demonstrations may get seriously looked at... and there's no chance that the cctv film will mysteriously disappear this time. This shit has been going on for far too long, and too many of us have been on the receiving end of it to varying extents over the years, or have mates who have etc. for there not to be some level of glee at this turn of events (the film footage obviously, not the death).

just to clarify: that video is tragic, and the copper who shoved Ian Tomlinson should be tried and convicted for manslaughter, and the people who lied about the nature of his death should be sacked, at the very least. I can see what's wrong here, but it's way too easy to self-righteous in that classic lefty 'fuck the police' way, in my extremely humble opinion.

agree with the first bit, as for the second bit, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

What was the difference? Why was there a difference?

Good question. Divide and Rule, good cop - bad cop - good protester bad protester. Simple memes for fucktard agents of the state and the stooge press to do their "thinking" by.

People who march nicely can and will be ignored.

People who are assertive will be assaulted by the states criminal goons and lied about.

 

[Kaka Tim]

I couldn't make it these protests but I went to what was publicised as the 'peaceful protests' on the Saturday beforehand from Temple to Hyde Park and saw no police intimidation, no aggression, no violence. There were no arrests. The police behaved extremely well, I thought. Nobody got in anybody's way and I had a great day. This was the same police force as the one on Wednesday. What was the difference? Why was there a difference?

Perhaps part of the reason was the media. The press got wind that the protests on April 1 would be attended by the more fringe anti-capitalist groups and whipped up hysteria, which surely would have contributed to the choice of rather foolish 'kettle' tactics, etc. So is the behaviour of the police dictated by their expectations? If they expect trouble, they act looking for trouble? It seems to me to end up in this ugly 'violence begets violence' catch22 pattern of which there is no easy solution. I don't know, it's hard to make sense and it's getting late.

Becasue the police (and/or their masters) want to criminlise all political activism and protest that seeks to go beyond voting once every five years, writing a strongly worded letter to your mp or a polite, a to b march on a police approved route.

 

[qwerty777]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/


Jesus .

 

[paolo]

I couldn't make it these protests but I went to what was publicised as the 'peaceful protests' on the Saturday beforehand from Temple to Hyde Park and saw no police intimidation, no aggression, no violence. There were no arrests. The police behaved extremely well, I thought. Nobody got in anybody's way and I had a great day. This was the same police force as the one on Wednesday. What was the difference? Why was there a difference?

Perhaps part of the reason was the media. The press got wind that the protests on April 1 would be attended by the more fringe anti-capitalist groups and whipped up hysteria, which surely would have contributed to the choice of rather foolish 'kettle' tactics, etc. So is the behaviour of the police dictated by their expectations? If they expect trouble, they act looking for trouble? It seems to me to end up in this ugly 'violence begets violence' catch22 pattern of which there is no easy solution. I don't know, it's hard to make sense and it's getting late.

It would be reasonable to be 'prepared' for a possible situation.

It would not be reasonable to then respond to such a situation that wasn't happening.

If I phoned the fire brigade and told them a block of flats was about to go up, I'd expect them to turn up with a bunch of trucks.

I wouldn't expect them to then hose down and evacuate the building when there was a merely a smouldering fag butt on the street.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Oh my ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-witnesses

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Recent protests have demonstrated that random violent assault is policy.
At what level is the policy set? are there criminal implications?

 

[agricola]

Be sure to complain to the BBC that they carry unchecked Met lies as truth despite their track record.

03700 100222

Again, the claim that the Met lied in this is not really supported by the evidence available.

The Guardian has a new article which contains the actual statements that have been put out, together with allegations of what they were told by Police at a briefing, and the IPCC statement that followed. The statements, the briefing and the IPCC initial statement all suggest that the initial focus of this was at Cornhill (where Tomlinson collapsed), and that it wasnt until people later recognized Tomlinson as having been involved elsewhere that it became clear there was more to this. If they did put out information knowing that it was false then of course they lied and should bear the consequences, but its very questionable as to whether they actually did, as the statements are not wrong as presented on that article.

The other lies claim - about only one bottle being thrown - is oddly enough contradicted by another article elsewhere in the Guardian.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

At this point there were probably about 20 officers - some dog handlers, some riot officers. And members of the public - city workers, people watching - were being stopped around the traffic lights although some were being allowed to walk through the pedestrian street that was now relatively clear, with a few protesters still standing around but certainly not a crowd.

The dog handlers began to sweep through the pedestrian street to start forming a police line. A dog barked and I saw one protester was on the floor who managed to get up. That's what drew my attention to that spot. It was then that I noticed Ian Tomlinson, who was walking from Threadneadle Street direction, walking towards Cornhill Street. A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him.

It wasn't just pushing him - he'd rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable. It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking-down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor.

So it wasn't just that the officer had pushed him - it became an assault. And then the officer picked him up from the back, continued to walk or charge with him, and threw him. He was running and stumbling. He didn't turn and confront the officer or anything like that.

Tomlinson was not confronting a police cordon. He was not in a crowd of protesters being corralled by police. He was walking on the street away from the police with barely anyone around him when he was attacked from behind.

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

He did not appear drunk - he was walking normally. I saw him suddenly fall back as though flung down with force. It was as though he had been spun. He fell and hit the top of his head hard. I was shocked. He lay on the ground for around 30 seconds without moving before a protester helped him up. The police did not help him at all.

source

 

[editor]

FFS: I just watched the BBC TV News and they started off with a reasonable summation of the attack on Tomlinson, but then immediately cut to the one bit of 'sexy' violence from the whole protest (the RBS damage) and added that officers had been put under a lot of stress that day. It was almost like they were excusing the officer's conduct by blaming the protesters for putting the poor delicate lambs under pressure.

I mean, it's not like:
(a) they were the ones dishing out the stress by the bucketful to peaceful punters all day and
(b) it's the job they're trained for

 

[Bernie Gunther]

FFS: I just watched the BBC TV News and they started off with a reasonable summation of the attack on Tomlinson, but then immediately cut to the one bit of 'sexy' violence from the whole protest (the RBS damage) and added that officers had been put under a lot of stress that day. It was almost like they were excusing the officer's conduct by blaming the protesters for putting the poor delicate lambs under pressure.

I mean, it's not like:
(a) they were the ones dishing out the stress by the bucketful to peaceful punters all day and
(b) it's the job they're trained for

It appears though, by inductive reasoning based on the behaviour of the police that what that masked officer did to the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson was precisely 'the job they're trained for'

 

[free spirit]

As I said earlier, while that statement may be in some ways misleading it may not be false - we dont know what the PM says beyond what has been released, and once again I point out that the IPCC and COLP may have had no idea that there was any involvement with police prior to his collapse in Cornhill. If they did and they put it out then obviously serious questions need to be asked, but it would be wrong to assume that at this stage.

let me try this one more time.

I am not saying the police attempted to deliberately mislead the public with their original statements. However the fact remains that it has since turned out these early statements were misleading / wrong.

If the police had later discovered new information via those coppers who witnessed / were involved in the assault coming forward, then the onus would be on the police to issue a statement to clarify the situation based on the new evidence that had come to light.

The public generally will give much greater credence to a statement that made clear that 'police officers had come forward as witnesses to Mr Tomlinson having come into contact with the police moments before his death' rather than 'other witnesses...'.

therefore omitting that information from the statement would at that point have been evidence of an effort to continue to mislead the public.


thing is though, I don't really believe any of that is the case, because I seriously doubt that any of those coppers had said anything particularly incriminating prior to the video being released.

Bet there was a fair amount of huddled discussions to get their stories straight though once the photos came out. Can't wait to find out what they've managed to come up with to attempt to justify the actions of that copper. I'm guessing that the only witnesses to whatever they alledge to have happened as justification will have been coppers, with no corroborating evidence, and stories that match just that little bit too well for them to be true.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The beeb have been bloody awful throughout the whole G20, and it's one of the reasons I'll be longdogging next time my licence fee comes up for renewal.

 

[exleper]

Good question. Divide and Rule, good cop - bad cop - good protester bad protester. Simple memes for fucktard agents of the state and the stooge press to do their "thinking" by.

People who march nicely can and will be ignored.

People who are assertive will be assaulted by the states criminal goons and lied about.

This is something that worries me. People who are 'assertive'. That's a bit of an ambiguous word, isn't it? Call me a naive old pacifist but I don't think it's ever helpful to decide, and indeed loudly announce to the world, that you plan to be violent and destructive. Otherwise the plod get wind and arrive with what they interpret to be a proportionate response. Then we end up with the tragedy we have now.

Again I'm not trying to justify anything, but ed earlier expressed frustration at the police response to peaceful protests. If the protests are expected to be, as you put it, more 'assertive', then logically, the police are likely to be 'assertive' in their response. Read: riot police who are probably scared for themselves deep down due to all the media hype and so view everyone as a threat. Do you see what I mean when I say it's not helpful to have a protest which is, if you will, non-nonviolent?

 

[editor]

Excerpt from the Guardian's comment section:

De Menezes taught the Met nothing

The last thing either the government or the Metropolitan police wanted, on the day that Britain played host to the G20 leaders last week, was a death during the demonstrations being staged simultaneously in the City of London. So perhaps it should be no surprise that initially the fate of Ian Tomlinson, the man who died in the midst of the main protest close to the Bank of England, was barely noted.

Although the Guardian reported the death on its front page, almost all the coverage elsewhere ignored it completely or concentrated on a version of events that suggested that the police's only connection with Tomlinson had been to try to rescue him from a baying mob of anarchists. The police were "pelted with bottles by a screaming mob" (the Mirror) or "pelted with bottles as a medical team tried to revive a demonstrator" (Mail). Tomlinson had died "after being 'caught among the mob'" (Telegraph). The BBC TV night-time news the following day made no mention of the death in its main bulletin.

The general overview of the demonstrations in the media was either one of mockery of the protesters or the implication that the City had had a fortuitous escape from complete anarchy. The Sun reported that "foaming at the mouth and smelling of stale cider, packs of protesters lurch(ed) through the city". An occasional commentator was wheeled on to say that the police had not used tear gas or water cannon, as they would almost certainly have done in other countries.

The implicit suggestion was that the protesters should be grateful that the authorities in Britain are not like, say, the neo-fascist thugs of the Genoa police who methodically battered defenceless protesters in the wake of the 2001 anti-globalisation protests in Italy. Certainly there were many good-natured police officers on the ground who tried to defuse the situation, and who were as baffled as anyone by their superiors' rigid tactics of containment, or "kettling", that caused so much confusion and tension on the day. At the same time, as many, many witnesses have reported, there were other officers hyped up for a ruckus who behaved, particularly at the Climate Camp in nearby Bishopsgate, after the cameras had departed, with the same sort of random, out of control, violence as that attributed to protesters...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...il-liberties-g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Again, the claim that the Met lied in this is not really supported by the evidence available.

Wrong. Straight out the gates the police said it was "natural causes". That wasnt true and they couldnt have known it to be true.